[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48220-48229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15780]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; Postsecondary Student Success Grant
Program (PSSG)
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice
inviting applications (NIA) for fiscal year (FY) 2023 for the
Postsecondary Student Success Grant Program (PSSG), Assistance Listing
Number 84.116M. This notice relates to the approved information
collection under OMB control number 1894-0006.
DATES:
Applications Available: July 26, 2023.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: September 25, 2023.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: November 24, 2023.
ADDRESSES: For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an
application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to
Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Federal Register on December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045), and available at
www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-26554. Please note that these Common
Instructions supersede the version published on December 27, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nemeka Mason-Clercin, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-
4260. Telephone: (202) 987-1340. Nalini Lamba-Nieves, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5C127, Washington, DC 20202-
4260. Telephone: (202) 453-7953. Email: [email protected].
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 48221]]
Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Program: The purpose of this program is to equitably
improve postsecondary student outcomes, including retention, transfer
(including successful transfer of completed credits), credit
accumulation, and completion, by leveraging data and implementing,
scaling, and rigorously evaluating evidence-based activities to support
data-driven decisions and actions by institutional leaders committed to
inclusive student success.
Background: In today's economy, more than 60 percent of U.S. jobs
require a postsecondary credential.\1\ Data show that as educational
attainment increases, median earnings steadily increase.\2\ It is
critical for institutions of higher education (IHEs) to provide support
systems to improve retention, progression, and completion rates to
decrease economic and social equity gaps for students of color and low-
income students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Recovery2020.FR_.Web_.pdf.
\2\ www.bls.gov/emp/chart-unemployment-earnings-education.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Students of color and low-income students still face barriers to
successfully enrolling in and completing college. Between 2019 and
2021, there have been decreases in undergraduate enrollment for Native
American students (7.9 percent decrease), Black students (7.3 percent
decrease), and Hispanic students (5 percent decrease).\3\ From 2019 to
2022, there has been a decrease in enrollment for Pell grant recipients
(9.9 percent).\4\ In addition, while graduation rates have increased in
four-year institutions overall by 4.6 percentage points since 2015,
double-digit graduation rate gaps between underrepresented students of
color and white students remain, and there is a 9-percentage point gap
in graduation rates between Pell and non-Pell students.\5\ The same is
occurring in two-year institutions, with an overall graduation rate
increase of 2.8 percentage points since 2012, but a declining rate for
Hispanic and Black students, leading to increasing gaps between white
students and underrepresented students of color.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_306.10.asp?current=yes.
\4\ https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/trends-in-student-aid-presentation-2022.pdf.
\5\ https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Search?query=&query2=&resultType=all&page=1&sortBy=date_desc&overlayTableId=32473.
\6\ https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_326.10.asp, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_326.20.asp?current=yes, https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Search?query=&query2=&resultType=all&page=1&sortBy=date_desc&overlayTableId=32473.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, as more ``non-traditional'' students attend college,
additional and different supports are required to enable them to
successfully complete their credentials. Today, 25 percent of
postsecondary students are age 25 or older,\7\ about 70 percent of
students work while enrolled,\8\ and 22 percent of students are
parents.\9\ At community colleges,31 percent of students enrolled are
age 25 or older,\10\ and 42 percent of all student parents attend
community colleges.\11\ Research has found that IHEs should employ a
multifaceted and integrated approach in mitigating barriers that hinder
students in their educational trajectories, addressing academic,
financial and other barriers.\12\ Moreover, IHEs that have improved
completion rates use timely, disaggregated, actionable data to identify
institutional barriers to student success, implement interventions, and
evaluate impact on an on-going basis.\13\ Institutional leadership has
been found to be critical to ensuring that the student experience is
intentionally designed to increase student retention, persistence, and
completion rates.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_303.50.asp?current=yes.
\8\ https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Working-Learners-Report.pdf.
\9\ https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED612580.pdf.
\10\ https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_303.50.asp?current=yes.
\11\ https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED612580.pdf.
\12\ www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/doubling_graduation_rates_fr.pdf.
\13\ Phillips, B.C., & Horowitz, J.E. (2013). Maximizing data
use: A focus on the completion agenda. In Special Issue: The College
Completion Agenda-Practical Approaches for Reaching the Big Goal.
New Directions for Community Colleges, 2013(164), 17-25.
\14\ McNair, T.B., Albertine, S., McDonald, N., Major Jr, T., &
Cooper, M.A. (2022). Becoming a student-ready college: A new culture
of leadership for student success. John Wiley & Sons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This grant program seeks to fund evidence-based (as defined in this
notice) strategies that result in improved student outcomes for
underserved students (as defined in this notice). The program has two
absolute priorities that correspond to varying evidence standards. This
multi-tiered competition invites applicants that are in the ``early
phase'' or ``mid-phase/expansion'' of their evidence-based work to
support students through degree completion. This grant also supports
the evaluation, dissemination, scaling, and sustainability efforts of
the activities funded under this grant.
In this competition, eligibility is limited to institutions that
are designated as eligible under the HEA titles III and V programs,
nonprofits that are not IHEs or associated with an IHE in partnership
with institutions that are designated as eligible under the HEA titles
III and V programs, States in partnerships with institutions that are
designated as eligible under the HEA titles III and V programs, and
public systems of institutions. Institutions designated as eligible
under titles III and V include Historically Black Colleges or
Universities (HBCUs), Tribally Controlled Colleges or Universities
(TCCUs), Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) and other institutions
with high enrollment of needy students and below average full-time
equivalent (FTE) expenditures--including community colleges. The
Department believes that targeting funding to these IHEs is the best
use of the available funding because these institutions
disproportionately enroll students from groups who are underrepresented
among college completers, such as low-income students. Supporting
retention and completion strategies at these institutions offers the
greatest potential to close gaps in postsecondary outcomes.
Additionally, these under resourced institutions are most in need of
Federal assistance to implement and evaluate evidence-based
postsecondary college retention and completion interventions.
Early-Phase
Early-phase grants provide funding to IHEs to develop, implement,
and test the feasibility of a program that prior research suggests is
likely to improve relevant outcomes, for the purpose of determining
whether an initiative improves student retention and completion of
postsecondary students. Early-phase grants must ``demonstrate a
rationale'' (as defined in this notice) and include a logic model (as
defined in this notice), theory of action, or another conceptual
framework that includes the goals, objectives, outcomes, and key
project components (as defined in this notice) of the project, and that
demonstrates the relationship between such proposed activities and the
relevant outcomes the project is designed to achieve. The evaluation
design will be assessed on the extent to which it would meet What Works
Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence Standards with or without reservations.
The evaluation of an Early-phase project should be an experimental or
quasi-experimental design study (both as defined in this notice) that
can determine whether the program can successfully improve
postsecondary student success outcomes for underserved students.
[[Page 48222]]
Early-phase grantees during their grant period are encouraged to
make continuous and iterative improvements in project design and
implementation before conducting a full-scale evaluation of
effectiveness. Grantees should consider how easily others could
implement the proposed practice, and how its implementation could
potentially be improved. Additionally, grantees should consider using
data from early indicators to gauge initial impact and to consider
possible changes in implementation that could increase student
outcomes.
Mid-Phase/Expansion
Mid-phase/Expansion grants are supported by moderate evidence (as
defined in this notice) or strong evidence (as defined in this notice),
respectively. These grants provide funding to IHEs to improve and/or
expand initiatives and practices that have been proven to be effective
in increasing postsecondary student retention and completion. Mid-
phase/Expansion projects should provide vital insight about an
intervention's effectiveness, such as for whom and in which contexts a
practice/intervention is most effective. Mid-phase grantees should also
measure the cost-effectiveness of their practices using administrative
or other readily available data.
Mid-phase/Expansion grant projects are distinctly situated to
provide insight on scaling an initiative to a larger population of
students or across multiple campuses.
These grants must be implemented at a multi-site sample (as defined
in this notice) with more than one campus or in one campus that
includes at least 2,000 students. Project evaluations must evaluate the
effectiveness of the project at each site.
Mid-phase/Expansion grants must meet the ``moderate evidence''
threshold or ``strong evidence'' standard and include a logic model
that demonstrates the relationship between the key project components
and the relevant outcomes the project is designed to achieve. Mid-
phase/Expansion grants are also required to submit an evaluation design
that will be assessed on the extent to which it would meet WWC Evidence
Standards without reservations.
Note that all research that meets the strong evidence standard also
meets the moderate evidence standard. As such, the effective evidence
standard for Absolute Priority 2 is moderate evidence. However, we
encourage applicants to propose projects based on strong evidence and
to expand services even beyond the scale requirements under Absolute
Priority 2. We have combined the two types of grants into a single tier
given funding limitations and the fact that this is the first year of
implementing a tiered evidence structure in this program.
All Grant Tiers
PSSG applicants should consider how these evidence-based practices
are implemented and the impact these practices have on their student
population given their context. PSSG applicants seek to explore the
effectiveness of practices/strategies that can improve student
persistence and retention, leading to degree completion.
The evaluation of a PSSG project should be designed to determine
whether the program can successfully improve postsecondary student
persistence, retention, and completion. As previously stated, the
evaluation design for early phase applications will be assessed on the
extent to which it could meet WWC Evidence Standards with or without
reservations while the evaluation design for mid phase/expansion
applications will be assessed on the extent to which it could meet WWC
Evidence Standards without reservations.
The Department intends to provide grantees and their independent
evaluators with technical assistance in their evaluation,
dissemination, scaling, and sustainability efforts. This could include
grantees and their evaluators providing to the Department or its
contractor updated comprehensive evaluation plans in a format as
requested by the technical assistance provider and using such tools as
the Department may request. Grantees will be encouraged to update this
evaluation plan at least annually to reflect any changes to the
evaluation. Updates must be consistent with the scope and objectives of
the approved application.
PSSG applicants should consider their organizational capacity and
the funding needed to sustain their projects and continue
implementation and adaptation after Federal funding ends.
Priorities: This notice contains two absolute priorities and one
competitive preference priority. We are establishing the absolute
priorities and competitive preference priority for the FY 2023 grant
competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the
list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with
section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20
U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). Applicants have the option of addressing the
competitive preference priority and may opt to do so regardless of the
absolute priority they select.
Absolute Priorities: For FY 2023 and any subsequent year in which
we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this
competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR
75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet one of these
priorities.
These Priorities are:
Absolute Priority 1 (AP1)--Applications that Demonstrate a
Rationale. ``Early-phase''.
Under this priority, an applicant proposes a project that
demonstrates a rationale to improve postsecondary success for
underserved students, including retention and completion.
Absolute Priority 2 (AP2)--Applicants that Demonstrate Moderate
Evidence, ``Mid-phase'' or Strong Evidence, ``Expansion''.
Under this priority, an applicant proposes a project supported by
evidence that meets the conditions in the definition of ``Moderate
Evidence'' or ``Strong Evidence,'' to improve postsecondary success for
underserved students, including retention and completion. Projects
under this priority must be implemented at a multi-site sample or
include at least 2,000 students.
(a) Applicants addressing this priority must:
(1) identify up to two studies to be reviewed against the WWC
Handbooks (as defined in this notice) for the purposes of meeting the
definition of moderate evidence or strong evidence;
(2) clearly identify the citations and relevant findings for each
study in the Evidence form; and
(3) ensure that all cited studies are available to the Department
from publicly available sources and provide links or other guidance
indicating where each is available.
Note: The studies may have been conducted by the applicant or by a
third party. The Department may not review a study that an applicant
fails to clearly identify for review.
(b) In addition to including up to two study citations, an
applicant must provide in the Evidence form the following information:
(1) the positive student outcomes the applicant intends to
replicate under its Mid-phase/Expansion grant and how these outcomes
correspond to the positive student outcomes in the cited studies;
(2) the characteristics of the population or setting to be served
under its Mid-phase/Expansion grant and how these characteristics
correspond to the characteristics of the population or setting in the
cited studies; and
[[Page 48223]]
(3) the practice(s) the applicant plans to implement under its Mid-
phase/Expansion grant and how the practice(s) correspond with the
practice(s) in the cited studies.
Note: If the Department determines that an applicant has provided
insufficient information, the applicant will not have an opportunity to
provide additional information. However, if the WWC team reviewing
evidence determines that a study does not provide enough information on
key aspects of the study design, such as sample attrition or
equivalence of intervention and comparison groups, the WWC may submit a
query to the study author(s) to gather information for use in
determining a study rating. Authors would be asked to respond to
queries within 10 business days. Should the author query remain
incomplete within 14 days of the initial contact to the study
author(s), the study may be deemed ineligible under the grant
competition. After the grant competition closes, the WWC will, for
purposes of its own curation of studies, continue to include responses
to author queries and make updates to study reviews as necessary.
However, no additional information will be considered after the
competition closes and the initial timeline established for response to
an author query passes.
Competitive Preference Priority: For FY 2023, and any subsequent
year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications
from this competition, this priority is a competitive preference
priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional 6
points to an application, depending on how well the application meets
the competitive preference priority.
This priority is:
Applicants that have made progress towards or can demonstrate they
have a plan to improve student outcomes for underserved students by
using data to continually assess and improve the effectiveness of
funded activities and sustain data-driven continuous improvement
processes at the institution after the grant period (up to 6 points).
Applicants addressing this priority must:
(a) Identify or describe how they will develop the performance and
outcome measures they will use to monitor and evaluate implementation
of the intervention(s), including baseline data, intermediate and
annual targets, and disaggregation by student subgroups (up to 2
points); (b) Describe how they will assess and address gaps in current
data systems, tools, and capacity and how they will monitor and respond
to performance and outcome data to improve implementation of the
intervention on an ongoing basis and as part of formative and summative
evaluation of the intervention(s)(up to 2 points); and (c) Describe how
institutional leadership will be involved with and supportive of
project leadership and how the project relates to the institution's
broader student success priorities and improvement processes (up to 2
points).
Definitions: In accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, we are
establishing definitions for ``Students with disabilities,'' ``English
learner,'' ``Minority-serving institution,'' ``multi-site sample'' and
``underserved student'' \15\ for the FY 2023 grant competition and any
subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded
applications from this competition. The remaining definitions are from
34 CFR 77.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The definitions of ``Students with disabilities,''
``English learner,'' and ``underserved student,'' for the purposes
of this competition, align with the definitions of these terms in
the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for
Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on
December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70612) (Supplemental Priorities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline means the starting point from which performance is
measured and targets are set.
Demonstrates a Rationale means a key project component included in
the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation
findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve
relevant outcomes.
English learner means an individual who is an English learner as
defined in Section 8101(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as amended, or an individual who is an English language
learner as defined in section 203(7) of the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act.
Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by
one or more of strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising
evidence,\16\ or evidence that demonstrates a rationale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The definition of ``promising evidence'' is from 34 CFR
77.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare
outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are
otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment
group receiving a project component or a control group that does not.
Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies,
and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental
studies that, depending on their design and implementation (e.g.,
sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression
discontinuity design studies), can meet WWC standards without
reservations as described in the WWC Handbooks:
(i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for
example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the
project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to
receive the project component (the control group).
(ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project
component being evaluated using a measured variable (e.g., assigning
students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental
education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of
outcomes.
(iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case
(e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in
the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to
determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the
treatment.
Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a
framework that identifies key project components of the proposed
project (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' that are hypothesized to be
critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the
theoretical and operational relationships among the key project
components and relevant outcomes.
Note: In developing logic models, applicants may want to use
resources such as the Regional Educational Laboratory Program's (REL
Pacific) Education Logic Model Application, available at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/regions/pacific/pdf/ELMUserGuideJune2014.pdf. Other
sources include: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/pacific/pdf/REL_2014025.pdf, and https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/pdf/REL_2015057.pdf.
Minority-serving institution means an institution that is eligible
to receive assistance under sections 316 through 320 of part A of title
III, under part B of title III, or under title V of the HEA.
Moderate Evidence means that there is evidence of effectiveness of
a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample
that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive that
component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0,
4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a ``strong evidence base''
or ``moderate
[[Page 48224]]
evidence base'' for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1,
3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a ``positive effect''
or ``potentially positive effect'' on a relevant outcome based on a
``medium to large'' extent of evidence, with no reporting of a
``negative effect'' or ``potentially negative effect'' on a relevant
outcome; or
(iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design
study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or
4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, or otherwise assessed by the Department using
version 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, as appropriate, and that--(A) Meets
WWC standards with or without reservations; (B) Includes at least one
statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a
relevant outcome; (C) Includes no overriding statistically significant
and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a
corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1, 3.0,
4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks; and (D) Is based on a sample from
more than one site (e.g., State, county, city, school district, or
postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other
individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project
component that each meet requirements in paragraphs (iii) (A), (B), and
(C) of this definition may together satisfy the requirement in this
paragraph (iii)(D).
Multi-site sample means at least two campuses of a single
institution or multiple IHEs, including multiple IHEs within one public
system of higher education.
Nonprofit, as applied to an agency, organization, or institution,
means that it is owned and operated by one or more corporations or
associations whose net earnings do not benefit, and cannot lawfully
benefit, any private shareholder or entity.
Note: For purposes of this competition, this definition of
Nonprofit does not apply to institutions of higher education or
nonprofits that are a part of an IHE.
Performance measure means any quantitative indicator, statistic, or
metric used to gauge program or project performance.
Performance target means a level of performance that an applicant
would seek to meet during the course of a project or as a result of a
project.
Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention,
process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence
may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of
project components (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices
for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).
Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that
attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a
comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important
respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation
(e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being
compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet
WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbooks.
Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s)
the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the
specific goals of the program.
Strong Evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness
of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample
that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive
that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0,
4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a ``strong evidence base''
for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1,
3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a ``positive effect''
on a relevant outcome based on a ``medium to large'' extent of
evidence, with no reporting of a ``negative effect'' or ``potentially
negative effect'' on a relevant outcome; or
(iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC
using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, or otherwise
assessed by the Department using version 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, as
appropriate, and that
(A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;
(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative
effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a
corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1, 3.0,
4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks; and
(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State,
county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at
least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies
of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs
(iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy the
requirement in this paragraph (iii)(D).
Students with disabilities means students with disabilities as
defined in section 602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1401(3) and 34 CFR 300.8, or students
with disabilities, as defined in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29
U.S.C. 705(37), 705(202)(B)).
Underserved student means a student in one or more of the following
subgroups:
(a) A student who is living in poverty or is served by schools with
high concentrations of students living in poverty.
(b) A student of color.
(c) A student who is a member of a federally recognized Indian
Tribe.
(d) An English learner.
(e) A student with a disability.
(f) A lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, or
intersex (LGBTQI+) student.
(g) A pregnant, parenting, or caregiving student.
(h) A student who is the first in their family to attend
postsecondary education.
(i) A student enrolling in or seeking to enroll in postsecondary
education for the first time at the age of 20 or older.
(j) A student who is working full-time while enrolled in
postsecondary education.
(k) A student who is enrolled in, or is seeking to enroll in,
postsecondary education who is eligible for a Pell Grant.
(l) An adult student in need of improving their basic skills or an
adult student with limited English proficiency.
WWC Handbooks means the standards and procedures set forth in the
WWC Standards Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, and WWC Procedures
Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, or in the WWC Procedures and Standards
Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (all incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards
can meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with
reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and
intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of
evidence as described in the WWC Handbooks documentation.
[[Page 48225]]
Note: The WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 4.1), as
well as the more recent WWC Handbooks released in August 2022 (Version
5.0), are available at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks.
Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure
Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties
the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities, definitions, and
requirements. Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, however, allows the Secretary
to exempt from rulemaking requirements regulations governing the first
grant competition under a new or substantially revised program
authority. This program, as a substantially revised program, qualifies
for this exemption. To ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has
decided to forgo public comment on the priorities, definitions, and
requirements under section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. These priorities,
definitions, and requirements will apply to the FY 2023 grant
competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the
list of unfunded applications from this competition.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1138-1138d; House Report 117-403 and
the Explanatory Statement accompanying Division H of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328).
Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner
consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in the
Federal civil rights laws.
Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 97,
98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to
Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and suspension (Nonprocurement) in
2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department
in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part
200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR
part 3474.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of
higher education only.
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Discretionary grant.
Estimated Available Funds: $44,550,000.
These estimated available funds are the total available for new
awards for both types of grants under PSSG (Early-phase and Mid-phase/
Expansion grants).
Early-phase--$22,275,000 for AP1.
Mid-phase/Expansion--$22,275,000 for AP2.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of
applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from
the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
Estimated Range of Awards:
Early-phase (AP1)--$2,000,000-$4,000,000 for 48 months.
Mid-phase/Expansion (AP2)--$6,000,000-$8,000,000 for 48 months.
Estimated Average Size of Awards:
Early-phase (AP1)--$3,000,000 for 48 months.
Mid-phase/Expansion (AP2)--$7,000,000 for 48 months.
Maximum Awards: We will not make awards exceeding the following
amounts for a 48-month budget period.
Early-phase (AP1)--$4,000,000.
Mid-phase/Expansion (AP2)--$8,000,000.
Estimated Number of Awards:
Early-phase (AP1)--5-8.
Mid-phase/Expansion (AP2)--3-4.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Project Period: Up to 48 months.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants: Institutions designated as eligible to
apply under Title III/V (which includes HBCUs, TCCUs, MSIs and SIP);
nonprofits that are not an IHE or part of an IHE, in partnership with
at least one eligible Title III/V IHE; a State, in partnership with at
least one eligible Title III/V IHE; or a public system of higher
education institutions.
Note: The notice announcing the FY 2023 process for designation of
eligible institutions, and inviting applications for waiver of
eligibility requirements, was published in the Federal Register on
January 17, 2023 (88 FR 2611). Only institutions that the Department
determines are eligible, or which are granted a waiver under the
process described in the January 17, 2023, notice, and that meet the
other eligibility requirements described in this notice, may apply for
a grant under this program. To determine if your institution is
eligible for this grant program please visit, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/idues/eligibility.html.
Institutions must include their FY 2023 Eligibility Letter in their
application packet under other attachments. To retrieve the letter,
please visit https://hepis.ed.gov/main.
Note: If you are a nonprofit organization, under 34 CFR 75.51, you
may demonstrate your nonprofit status by providing: (1) proof that the
Internal Revenue Service currently recognizes the applicant as an
organization to which contributions are tax deductible under section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a statement from a State
taxing body or the State attorney general certifying that the
organization is a nonprofit organization operating within the State and
that no part of its net earnings may lawfully benefit any private
shareholder or individual; (3) a certified copy of the applicant's
certificate of incorporation or similar document if it clearly
establishes the nonprofit status of the applicant; or (4) any item
described above if that item applies to a State or national parent
organization, together with a statement by the State or parent
organization that the applicant is a local nonprofit affiliate.
2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: Each grant recipient must provide,
from Federal, State, local, or private sources, an amount equal to or
exceeding 10 percent of funds requested under the grant, which may be
provided in cash or through in-kind contributions, to carry out
activities supported by the grant. Applicants must include a budget
showing their matching contributions to the budget amount requested of
PSSG funds.
The Secretary may waive the matching requirement on a case-by-case
basis, upon a showing of exceptional circumstances, such as:
(i) The difficulty of raising matching funds for a program to serve
a high poverty area defined as a Census tract, a set of contiguous
Census tracts, an American Indian Reservation, Oklahoma Tribal
Statistical Area (as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau), Alaska Native
Village Statistical Area or Alaska Native Regional Corporation Area,
Native Hawaiian Homeland Area, or other tribal land as defined by the
Secretary in guidance or county that has a poverty rate of at least 25
percent as set every 5 years using American Community Survey 5-Year
data;
(ii) Serving a significant population of low-income students
defined as at least 50 percent (or meet the eligibility threshold \17\
for the appropriate institutional sector) of degree-seeking enrolled
students receiving need-based grant aid under Title IV; or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Request for Designation as an Eligible Institution and
Waiver of the Non-Federal Cost Share Requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Showing significant economic hardship as demonstrated by low
average educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent
undergraduate student, in comparison
[[Page 48226]]
with the average educational and general expenditures per full-time
equivalent undergraduate student of institutions that offer similar
instruction.
Note: Institutions seeking to waive the matching requirement must
provide the outlined waiver request information within their
application.
b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This competition involves supplement-
not-supplant funding requirements. This program uses the waiver
authority of section 437(d)(1) of GEPA to establish this as a
supplement-not-supplant program. Grant funds must be used so that they
supplement and, to the extent practical, increase the funds that would
otherwise be available for the activities to be carried out under the
grant and in no case supplant those funds.
c. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program limits a grantee's
indirect cost reimbursement to eight percent of a modified total direct
cost base. We are establishing this indirect cost limit for the FY 2023
grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from
the list of unfunded applications from this competition in accordance
with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. For more information regarding indirect
costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see
www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.
d. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include
any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All
administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to
Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform
Guidance.
3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may award
subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities
described in its application. The grantee may award subgrants to
entities it has identified in an approved application.
4. Evaluation: This program uses the waiver authority of section
437(d)(1) of GEPA to require a grantee to conduct an independent
evaluation of the effectiveness of its project.
5. Other Requirements: Applicants may only apply to one absolute
priority ``tier''. One application per applicant.
IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to
follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of
Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal
Register on December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045), and available at
www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-26554, which contain requirements and
information on how to submit an application. Please note that these
Common Instructions supersede the version published on December 27,
2021.
2. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about
Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order
12372 is in the application package for this program.
3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you,
the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to
evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the
application narrative to no more than 30 pages and (2) use the
following standards:
A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1''
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch)
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings,
footnotes, quotations, references, and captions as well as all text in
charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, and no
smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier,
Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended 30-page limit does not apply to the cover sheet;
the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the
assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract. However, the
recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
Note: The Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs Form (ED
524) Sections A-C are not the same as the narrative response to the
Budget section of the selection criteria.
V. Application Review Information
1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition
are from 34 CFR 75.210. The points assigned to each criterion are
indicated in the parentheses next to the criterion. An applicant may
earn up to a total of 100 points based on the selection criteria for
the application. An applicant that also chooses to address the
competitive preference priority can earn up to 106 total points.
1.1 Absolute Priority One--Early-Phase Selection Criteria
(a) Significance. (up to 20 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed
project.
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project involves
the development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build
on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies.
(b) Quality of the Project Design. (up to 30 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the
proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying
the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of
that framework. (up to 10 points)
(ii) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(up to 5 points)
(iii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is
appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target
population or other identified needs. (up to 15 points)
(c) Quality of Project Personnel. (up to 10 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will
carry out the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary
considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for
employment from persons who are members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability. (up to 5 points)
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the qualifications,
including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.
(up to 5 points)
(d) Quality of the Management Plan. (up to 10 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for
the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan, the
Secretary considers the adequacy of the management plan to achieve the
objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including
[[Page 48227]]
clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for
accomplishing project tasks. (up to 10 points)
(e) Quality of the Project Evaluation. (up to 30 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be
conducted of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well
implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that
would meet the WWC standards with or without reservations as described
in the WWC Handbook. (up to 20 points)
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward
achieving intended outcomes. (up to 5 points)
(iii) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates
the key project components, mediators, and outcomes, as well as a
measurable threshold for acceptable implementation. (up to 5 points)
1.2 Absolute Priority Two--Mid-Phase/Expansion Selection Criteria
(a) Significance. (up to 15 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed
project.
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The national significance of the proposed project. (up to 5
points)
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project involves the
development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on,
or are alternatives to, existing strategies. (up to 5 points)
(iii) The potential contribution of the proposed project to
increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues,
or effective strategies. (up to 5 points)
(b) Strategy to Scale. (up to 35 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the applicant's strategy to scale the
proposed project.
(2) In determining the applicant's capacity to scale the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the applicant identifies a specific
strategy or strategies that address a particular barrier or barriers
that prevented the applicant, in the past, from reaching the level of
scale that is proposed in the application. (up to 15 points)
(ii) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks. (up to 5 points)
(iii) The mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate
information on its project so as to support further development or
replication. (up to 15 points)
(c) Quality of the Project Design. (up to 15 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the
proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying
the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of
that framework. (up to 5 points)
(ii) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(up to 5 points)
(iii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is
appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target
population or other identified needs. (up to 5 points)
(d) Quality of the Project Evaluation. (up to 35 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be
conducted of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well
implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that
would meet the WWC standards without reservations as described in the
WWC Handbook. (up to 20 points)
(ii) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about
effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other
settings. (up to 5 points)
(iii) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates
the key project components, mediators, and outcomes, as well as a
measurable threshold for acceptable implementation. (up to 5 points)
(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward
achieving intended outcomes. (up to 5 points)
Note: Applicants may wish to review the following technical
assistance resources on evaluation: (1) WWC Procedures and Standards
Handbooks: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks; (2) ``Technical
Assistance Materials for Conducting Rigorous Impact Evaluations'':
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluationTA.asp; and (3) IES/NCEE
Technical Methods papers: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/. In
addition, applicants may view an optional webinar recording that was
hosted by the Institute of Education Sciences. The webinar focused on
more rigorous evaluation designs, discussing strategies for designing
and executing experimental studies that meet WWC evidence standards
without reservations. This webinar is available at: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Multimedia/18.
2. Review and Selection Process: Potential applicants are reminded
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition,
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past
performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as
the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and
compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider
whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or
submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary
requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department
(34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
A panel of non-Federal reviewers will review and score each
application in accordance with the selection criteria. The Department
will prepare a rank order of applications for each Absolute Priority
based solely on the evaluation of their quality according to the
selection criteria and competitive preference priority points. Awards
will be made in rank order according to the average score received from
the peer review. The rank order of applications for each Absolute
Priority will be used to create two slates.
Before making awards, we will screen applications submitted in
accordance with the requirements in this notice to determine whether
applications have met eligibility and other requirements. This
screening process may occur at various stages of the process;
applicants that are determined to be ineligible will not receive a
grant, regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments.
Tiebreaker: Within each slate, if there is more than one
application with the same score and insufficient funds to fund all the
applications with the same ranking, the Department will apply the
[[Page 48228]]
following procedure to determine which application or applications will
receive an award:
First Tiebreaker: The first tiebreaker will be the applicant with
the highest percentage of undergraduate students who are Pell grant
recipients. If a tie remains, the second tiebreaker will be utilized.
Second Tiebreaker: The second tiebreaker will be the highest
average score for the selection criterion titled ``Significance.''
3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions:
Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this
competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by
applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, the Secretary may impose specific
conditions and, under 2 CFR 3474.10, in appropriate circumstances,
high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not
financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a
financial or other management system that does not meet the standards
in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a
prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.
4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this
competition to receive an award that over the course of the project
period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently
$250,000), under 2 CFR 200.206(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your
integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal
awards--that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant--before we make
an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that
is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as
the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System
(FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may
review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal
agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active
grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the
Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity
information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal
funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
5. In General: In accordance with the Office of Management and
Budget's guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal
laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and
consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting
applications in accordance with:
(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering
results based on the program objectives through an objective process of
evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video
surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the
National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR
200.216);
(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to
maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United
States (2 CFR 200.322); and
(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest
extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program
goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award
Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to
access an electronic version of your GAN. We also may notify you
informally.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding,
we notify you.
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements:
We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the
application package and reference these and other requirements in the
Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding
commitments under the grant.
3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you
are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to
openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in
part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of
modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those
modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent
that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or
other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works.
Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant
funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables.
This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your
application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional
information on the open licensing requirements, please refer to 2 CFR
3474.20.
4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition,
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the
Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual
performance report that provides the most current performance and
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34
CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting,
please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
5. Performance Measures: For the purpose of Department reporting
under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department has established a set of required
performance measures (as defined in this notice):
(1) First-year credit accumulation.
(2) Annual retention (at initial institution) and persistence (at
any institution) rates.
(3) Success rates including graduation and upward transfer for two-
year institutions.
(4) Time to credential.
(5) Number of credentials conferred.
Note: All measures should be disaggregated by race/ethnicity and
Pell grant recipient status and should be inclusive of all credential-
seeking students (e.g., full-time and part-time, first-time and
transfer-in.)
Project-Specific Performance Measures: Applicants must propose
project-specific performance measures and performance targets (both as
defined in this notice) consistent with the objectives of the proposed
project.
Applications must provide the following information as directed
under 34 CFR 75.110(b):
(1) Performance measures. How each proposed performance measure
would accurately measure the performance of
[[Page 48229]]
the project and how the proposed performance measure would be
consistent with the performance measures established for the program
funding the competition.
(2) Baseline (as defined in this notice) data. (i) Why each
proposed baseline is valid; or (ii) if the applicant has determined
that there are no established baseline data for a particular
performance measure, an explanation of why there is no established
baseline and of how and when, during the project period, the applicant
would establish a valid baseline for the performance measure.
(3) Performance targets. Why each proposed performance target is
ambitious yet achievable compared to the baseline for the performance
measure and when, during the project period, the applicant would meet
the performance target(s).
Applications must also provide the following information as
directed under 34 CFR 75.110(c):
(1) Data collection and reporting. (i) The data collection and
reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are
likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data; and
(ii) the applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid,
and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data
collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.
Depending on the nature of the intervention proposed in the
application, common metrics may include the following: college-level
math and English course completion in the first year (developmental
education); unmet financial need (financial aid); program of study
selection in the first year (advising); post-transfer completion
(transfer); and re-enrollment (degree reclamation).
These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success
for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for an award
under this program to consider the operationalization of the measures
in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed
project.
If funded, you will be required to collect and report data in your
project's annual performance report (34 CFR 75.590).
VII. Other Information
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an
accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an
accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text
format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print,
audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To
use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at
the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Nasser H. Paydar,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2023-15780 Filed 7-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P